Is This Too Good To Be True?

[abu_has_the_power]

Originally posted by bigdawgfoxx@23 February 2004 - 22:46
Image Resized
Image Resized
[img]https://filesharingtalk.com/sigs/whatlddfa.JPG' width='200' height='120' border='0' alt='click for full size view'>

is that ur current score? wow!! i'd think your's would do much better than mine. wat up with dat?

[adamp2p]

Originally posted by abu_has_the_power+23 February 2004 - 19:57--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (abu_has_the_power @ 23 February 2004 - 19:57)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-bigdawgfoxx@23 February 2004 - 22:46
Image Resized
Image Resized
<a href=&#39;https://filesharingtalk.com/sigs/whatlddfa.JPG&#39; target=&#39;image&#39;>Image Resized
[img]https://filesharingtalk.com/sigs/whatlddfa.JPG' width='200' height='120' border='0' alt='click for full size view'></a>

is that ur current score? wow&#33;&#33; i&#39;d think your&#39;s would do much better than mine. wat up with dat? [/b][/quote]
I don&#39;t know if you noticed, but big dawg&#39;s benchmark is slightly different than yours. Read the fine print.

And I already told you that much of that score is derived from an Intel algorithm; Intel uses a 800 MHz front side bus, which you OCed by the way, and AMD uses a 333 HMz-400 MHz front side bus. Therefore big dawg&#39;s score should be about half of yours, which is what it is.

And keep in mind that Sandra is a synthetic benchmark. It does not necessarily tally with real life performance.

[abu_has_the_power]

Originally posted by adamp2p+23 February 2004 - 23:04--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (adamp2p @ 23 February 2004 - 23:04)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by abu_has_the_power@23 February 2004 - 19:57
<!--QuoteBegin-bigdawgfoxx

@23 February 2004 - 22:46
Image Resized
Image Resized
<a href=&#39;https://filesharingtalk.com/sigs/whatlddfa.JPG&#39; target=&#39;image&#39;>Image Resized
<a href=&#39;https://filesharingtalk.com/sigs/whatlddfa.JPG&#39; target=&#39;image&#39;>Image Resized
[img]https://filesharingtalk.com/sigs/whatlddfa.JPG' width='200' height='120' border='0' alt='click for full size view'></a></a>

is that ur current score? wow&#33;&#33; i&#39;d think your&#39;s would do much better than mine. wat up with dat?

I don&#39;t know if you noticed, but big dawg&#39;s benchmark is slightly different than yours. Read the fine print.

And I already told you that much of that score is derived from an Intel algorithm; Intel uses a 800 MHz front side bus, which you OCed by the way, and AMD uses a 333 HMz-400 MHz front side bus. Therefore big dawg&#39;s score should be about half of yours, which is what it is.

And keep in mind that Sandra is a synthetic benchmark. It does not necessarily tally with real life performance. [/b][/quote]
i c. that&#39;s cool.

[bigdawgfoxx]

How is my benchmark slightyly different?

And would that be one way in which intel is alot better...?

[abu_has_the_power]

Originally posted by bigdawgfoxx@24 February 2004 - 08:27
How is my benchmark slightyly different?

And would that be one way in which intel is alot better...?

there&#39;s a huge fsb difference.

[lynx]

Because of the higher FSB, the intel chipset can handle dual channel memory differently. With only one stick it&#39;s performance would be the same as chipsets designed for AMD.

There is no real reason why AMD cpu&#39;s could not be given a higher FSB and lower multiplier for the same end cpu speed. It would then be possible for someone to design a chipset to use the same memory access features as Intel. If that happened, AMD performance would well exceed Intel in this area. The downside would be more expensive chipsets.

[bigdawgfoxx]

Why cant we just take an AMD and make it like 800Mhz times 3 Multiplier or something? lol

So is intel better then in this performance? Like does his benchmarks being so much higher then mine will his run alot faster then mine? Or is that just on that benchmark?

[ck-uk]

intel mate are obviously slightly better chips than amd,another fact is mate even thou by numbers amd are inferior they are fast too with a good technology for 3d like gaming ,video ,the price tag makes them just as good.On a good nforce board nice n cool you get real good performance.

[lynx]

Don&#39;t forget that abu&#39;s memory is overclocked to 533MHz. He has to do that because his multiplier is too low. If you could do that your bandwidth figure would go up to around 4100 (still not as good a abu&#39;s figure).

But if you look again at abu&#39;s benchmarks and look at the ones with a single stick you can see where the improvement is coming from. If someone made a similar chipset for amd you would be getting figures over 6500, way ahead of Intel. If you overclocked it as much as abu you might even see over 8000. That would make Intel look a little silly wouldn&#39;t it.

So the problem is not really the processor (except high multiplier and low FSB), the problem is with the chipset. I believe the 64-bit chips have overcome this problem.

[_John_Lennon_]

Originally posted by ck&#045;uk@24 February 2004 - 16:43
intel mate are obviously slightly better chips than amd,another fact is mate even thou by numbers amd are inferior they are fast too with a good technology for 3d like gaming ,video ,the price tag makes them just as good.On a good nforce board nice n cool you get real good performance.

Actually, Intel usually is better at video, and encoding tasks.